The FV Committee needs your input to the crb regarding the proposed intake manifold rules. Frankly, the committee believes the rule changes as stated in the February Fastrack do not go far enough in reigning in a new escalation towards ever more expensive, slightly higher performing manifolds. It is the position of the committee that this is not good for the class, especially at this time.
Here is a summary of the committee's positions and recommendations:
1. We do not feel the February Fastrack proposal goes far enough, even with the addition of the 1.050" OD limitation just above the head flanges. We need to control the OD of the tubing more completely.
2. We recommend that rules define where the bends in the “horizontal” or cross tube are located: 8.50" and 9.75" from the center of the down tube for the 3-4 and 1-2 sides respectively.
3. We recommend there be a "not to exceed" dimensional limit in the areas from the bends to a point 3/16" above the flanges. Our proposed limit is 1.050" and that testing for compliance be performed using a simple Go/No-Go gauge.
4. As an alternative to 3 above, we would propose that the 1.050" dimensional limit be based on an average of two measurements taken at 90 degrees to each other at any point on the horizontal tube from the bends to a point 3/16" above the flanges. This average would still be a "not to exceed" limit anywhere in the area between the bends and the flanges.
5. We recommend that the current rules be retained regarding the .994" dimension and averaging measurement process in the areas from near the down tube to the newly, better defined bends.
6. Most importantly, we want as many FV drivers/owners as possible to send their input on this issue to the SCCA at crb@scca.com
Please include your membership number and your relationship to FV. Stating the reasoning behind your opinion in specific, detail will also help the club to understand the desires of the membership.
If you feel strongly about this issue, and have already sent one letter please send another one. Again specific reasoning behind your opinion will make your opinion carry more weight.
Thank You,
The FV Committee: Steve Oseth, Dietmar Bauerle, Steve Davis, Mike Kochanski, Bruce Livermore
Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Bruce
cendiv37
cendiv37
-
sharplikestump
- Posts: 183
- Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
I just happened across this, have not had alot of time to think about it, but I am wondering: How many times are we gonna impose new rules on this piece. I just boxed up 3 manifolds to be reworked to the new specs. Should I be holding these until everyone is happy that we have pipes that comply with their individual wishes? I think the 1.050 rule is a reasonable compromise, even though it means that I could be losing some of these being destroyed in the process of downsizing them. Are we sure this is not turning into a witchhunt?
Maybe we should just get it over with and go back to completely stock units! What the heck, that would only cost me about $10,000 or so.
Mike Palermo Jr.
Peak Performance Racing
Maybe we should just get it over with and go back to completely stock units! What the heck, that would only cost me about $10,000 or so.
Mike Palermo Jr.
Peak Performance Racing
-
pillowmeto
- Posts: 103
- Joined: January 5th, 2008, 12:54 am
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
In a Karting class (I do not remember which one) carb throat diameters were controled and measured with a go/no go gauge or sliding calipers. Racers began to make triangular-ish throats so they would pass both tests but be larger than legal. How can we prevent the same thing with this rule change? I this an example of many other items that would not be well regulated and defeat the purpose of the rules?
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
I kinda agree with Mike. I appreciate your desire to limit development but having a manifold vendor on the committee tends to color the perception of what you're trying to accomplish. The proposed rule is fine since it will become effective 4/01/09 you don't have much time anyway. Just decide and be done with it.
Pillowmeto, the rule has always required rotating the measurement around the tube to prevent what you describe. Check out the text of the old rules in the GCR.
Pillowmeto, the rule has always required rotating the measurement around the tube to prevent what you describe. Check out the text of the old rules in the GCR.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
I suspect that the manifold maker on the committee would be more than happy to sell more manifolds, this time at $2000 each if that's what competitors want to pay to play. He's quite capable of raising his game to any level we choose to allow. What supplier wouldn't like to keep the demand and prices going up?
The point of this rules proposal is to do what's good for the class, not the suppliers.
The point of this rules proposal is to do what's good for the class, not the suppliers.
Bruce
cendiv37
cendiv37
-
hardingfv32-1
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Why would anyone spend that kind of money for an inferior manifold?
Some would view the constant efforts to modify the manifold rules as sign that some manifold makers are already at the top of their game. They are using the rules to bring the competition back to their level of performance. Why weren't the rules fixed before the competition came up with something better?
Do I HEAR cost control???
My customers wish to know where they can buy for - $500 - one of those special manifolds found on the Runoff front runners, like Stout or Oseth.
Brian
Some would view the constant efforts to modify the manifold rules as sign that some manifold makers are already at the top of their game. They are using the rules to bring the competition back to their level of performance. Why weren't the rules fixed before the competition came up with something better?
Do I HEAR cost control???
My customers wish to know where they can buy for - $500 - one of those special manifolds found on the Runoff front runners, like Stout or Oseth.
Brian
-
sharplikestump
- Posts: 183
- Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Let me see if I got this straight......
You want to protect the masses from the right to purchase what they perceive to be the best possible manifold ( please make note that I have rarely if ever paid ONE thousand dollars for a manifold).
What about the trick shocks that go for $1600 each? Or those of us that plunk down the rather big bucks for a Vortec, and then have the audacity to put new tires on every race!
Have you got something against the Free Market System?
Do I need to check with you before I make out invoices for engine rebuilds? If I decide to start charging $10K for a rebuild, the market will take care of that....I'll be out of business.
From what my dyno printouts are showing, the manifolds have reached a point where the last 1 or 2 % are making very little to no improvement at all, so in a way what has been achieved is equallity in manifolds. Let the free market work.
You want to protect the masses from the right to purchase what they perceive to be the best possible manifold ( please make note that I have rarely if ever paid ONE thousand dollars for a manifold).
What about the trick shocks that go for $1600 each? Or those of us that plunk down the rather big bucks for a Vortec, and then have the audacity to put new tires on every race!
Have you got something against the Free Market System?
Do I need to check with you before I make out invoices for engine rebuilds? If I decide to start charging $10K for a rebuild, the market will take care of that....I'll be out of business.
From what my dyno printouts are showing, the manifolds have reached a point where the last 1 or 2 % are making very little to no improvement at all, so in a way what has been achieved is equallity in manifolds. Let the free market work.
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
I'm not clear on what the board is trying to achieve with the manifold rules. The horse is already out of the barn and $2000 manifolds are already not only legal, they are essential if you want to be a front runner. It doesn't appear that the proposal is going to change that. If cost containment is the driving concern, the rules should be opened up to make it really easy to match the performance of these super manifolds without requiring the time and labor that it currently takes, which is why they cost $2000. If a top manifold could be produced and sold for $500 or less, that would be better for everyone in the class.
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Come on Mike get on the Spender-in Chief's socialists band wagon.
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Please stop changing the rules.
Maybe it was a bad idea to RUSH this rule change through with an effective date of 4/1, since the ink has not even dried and you are already asking to change it again.
Maybe the actual process outlined in the GCR would have been a better idea. Submit the proposal, allow for member input, then make it effective 1/1. Just like all other rules. Unless I am missing something and this was an urgent rule required to keep us safe.
Did Brad Stout have one of these monster manifolds? I do not believe he did.
Did Mike Veracins have one? I do not believe he did either.
Did Stephen Dreizler have one? I am quite certain he did not either.
So where is the "problem"? Seems like it isn't.
However, 5 of the top 6 runoff's finishers had a Vortech. Maybe we should make those illegal since the general membership cannot afford one of those.
Maybe it was a bad idea to RUSH this rule change through with an effective date of 4/1, since the ink has not even dried and you are already asking to change it again.
Maybe the actual process outlined in the GCR would have been a better idea. Submit the proposal, allow for member input, then make it effective 1/1. Just like all other rules. Unless I am missing something and this was an urgent rule required to keep us safe.
Did Brad Stout have one of these monster manifolds? I do not believe he did.
Did Mike Veracins have one? I do not believe he did either.
Did Stephen Dreizler have one? I am quite certain he did not either.
So where is the "problem"? Seems like it isn't.
However, 5 of the top 6 runoff's finishers had a Vortech. Maybe we should make those illegal since the general membership cannot afford one of those.
Stephen Saslow
FV 09 NWR
FV 09 NWR
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
In over 20 years of racing vees I think I have invested in just about every gadget, guage, engine mod, aero mod, data collector, and newer car design, that came to my attention. My goal was like most of you to run up front with the big guns. Inspite of a major investment in these items I remained about where I have always been, in the middle. Like others I convinced myself that the top people were cheating and that we needed rules and inforcement to "level the playing field". Lets see, there was the rule concerning valves and porting, the carb accelerator pump orfice rule, the manifold rule and the great equalizer the fuel rule. After each one of these I knew I was headed to the front, didn't happen. I was still in the middle. There was one exception the seat belt replacement rule. I was able to move past one of my faster buddies when he could not afford to replace his belts and sat out a race.
You see, none of the rules address the real problem with trying to create a a " level playing field" The real problem is with the drivers at the head of the pack some of whom sit on the committee drafting these rules. These top drivers have an unfair advantage. The have much greater aquired driving skills and natural talent. Many of you say that we need to contain cost and level the field well here is where we do it. We could keep raising the minimum weight of the cars of drivers who finish in the top three in our Nationals. For instance we could add 15 lbs for each first place finish. By the end of the season guys like Davis would have another 100 or so pounds and some of us might be able to catch him. Over time all of us could finish first at least once or twice. Think of this as a redistribution of ability and talent program. As to cost ,well the top drivers could just need eat more to make the weight. I guess the term lead sled might apply to some cars at the end of the season. So if what all of you want is a lever field and cost control this is the way to go.
Oh and one more thing once in place we can get rid of this committee and all their rules. John
You see, none of the rules address the real problem with trying to create a a " level playing field" The real problem is with the drivers at the head of the pack some of whom sit on the committee drafting these rules. These top drivers have an unfair advantage. The have much greater aquired driving skills and natural talent. Many of you say that we need to contain cost and level the field well here is where we do it. We could keep raising the minimum weight of the cars of drivers who finish in the top three in our Nationals. For instance we could add 15 lbs for each first place finish. By the end of the season guys like Davis would have another 100 or so pounds and some of us might be able to catch him. Over time all of us could finish first at least once or twice. Think of this as a redistribution of ability and talent program. As to cost ,well the top drivers could just need eat more to make the weight. I guess the term lead sled might apply to some cars at the end of the season. So if what all of you want is a lever field and cost control this is the way to go.
Oh and one more thing once in place we can get rid of this committee and all their rules. John
-
sharplikestump
- Posts: 183
- Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
John, (KPS)
I don't know if we have met or not, but I will tell you this with all watching:
If we do meet, whenever, wherever......I'm buying the beer and burgers!
Mike Palermo Jr.
Peak Performance Racing
I don't know if we have met or not, but I will tell you this with all watching:
If we do meet, whenever, wherever......I'm buying the beer and burgers!
Mike Palermo Jr.
Peak Performance Racing
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Hi John kps,
Go grab a micrometer and and measure you intake manifold at the "curvy part" tell us the number !
eugene team2stool
Go grab a micrometer and and measure you intake manifold at the "curvy part" tell us the number !
eugene team2stool
eugene Team2Stool deviant
-
hardingfv32-1
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Eugene
Looking at the 08 points standings and assuming you are a fine driver, would it be wrong to think you could use a little more HP. From my experience I'm going to predict that you do not have a $1000 variety Kochanski manifold.
Questions for you: Should it be possible for you to purchase a manifold as good as ones used by Stout or Veracins? If you contact Pastore or Carr, what are the chances that they can make or get such a good manifold for you? How often do they actually see manifolds of this quality?
Are more manifold rule changes going to increase the likely hood of you being able to purchase a manifold equal to the front runners?
Brian
Looking at the 08 points standings and assuming you are a fine driver, would it be wrong to think you could use a little more HP. From my experience I'm going to predict that you do not have a $1000 variety Kochanski manifold.
Questions for you: Should it be possible for you to purchase a manifold as good as ones used by Stout or Veracins? If you contact Pastore or Carr, what are the chances that they can make or get such a good manifold for you? How often do they actually see manifolds of this quality?
Are more manifold rule changes going to increase the likely hood of you being able to purchase a manifold equal to the front runners?
Brian
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Hi Brian,
Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results!
Actually I did update my VSR/Autowerks manifold, late last year in anticipation for the 2009 season.....Dave has both my motors as we speak, We will see what we will see!
eugene
Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results!
Actually I did update my VSR/Autowerks manifold, late last year in anticipation for the 2009 season.....Dave has both my motors as we speak, We will see what we will see!eugene
eugene Team2Stool deviant
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Sometimes I don't do a good job of expressing my position so in response to Mr Grimes request that I measure my manifold I offer the following:
About nine years ago I purchased an expensive manifold from a well respected member of the Formula Vee community. This was not a one off piece but rather representative of a group of manifolds sold to many other drivers. Eighteen months ago it cracked to the extent I could not repair it so off it went to Mike Kochanski for evaluation. Mike declared it dead. My engine builder had flowed this manifold and verified its excellent results especially with the carb installed. He asked me to let him try to make the repair. While at his shop the issue over manifold size broke out and he decided to measure this one. I was notified that this manifold could not pass any of the measurement requirements old or new. For nine years I have complained to my engine builders that I was down on power compared to the top runners. Now I learn that for that entire period I had the Big Momma of manifolds and yet failed to place in the top three in a National race even on my home tracks. Now I have what Mike Kohanski tells me is one of his top manifolds. Last Sat. at Roebling Mr Isley past me going so fast it almost sucked the mirror off my car. Perhaps you can see why I don't think any additional manifold rules will make any difference in who is up front. As I said in my prior post the only way to level the field is to slow down the top drivers and I doubt they are interested in that solution. Part of what makes Formula Vee fun is that there has been a little bit of room for inovation. If you must have more rules try SRF
About nine years ago I purchased an expensive manifold from a well respected member of the Formula Vee community. This was not a one off piece but rather representative of a group of manifolds sold to many other drivers. Eighteen months ago it cracked to the extent I could not repair it so off it went to Mike Kochanski for evaluation. Mike declared it dead. My engine builder had flowed this manifold and verified its excellent results especially with the carb installed. He asked me to let him try to make the repair. While at his shop the issue over manifold size broke out and he decided to measure this one. I was notified that this manifold could not pass any of the measurement requirements old or new. For nine years I have complained to my engine builders that I was down on power compared to the top runners. Now I learn that for that entire period I had the Big Momma of manifolds and yet failed to place in the top three in a National race even on my home tracks. Now I have what Mike Kohanski tells me is one of his top manifolds. Last Sat. at Roebling Mr Isley past me going so fast it almost sucked the mirror off my car. Perhaps you can see why I don't think any additional manifold rules will make any difference in who is up front. As I said in my prior post the only way to level the field is to slow down the top drivers and I doubt they are interested in that solution. Part of what makes Formula Vee fun is that there has been a little bit of room for inovation. If you must have more rules try SRF
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Hi all,
I'd like some clarification on what this is all about. In fact, the proposed rules are in the January Fastrack, not February. As I understand the lead post on this thread, the FV Committee is proposing ADDITIONAL rules, but these additional rules have not been submitted to the CRB. Is this correct or not?
If I have missed something, kindly explain what I have missed.
I think that the Committee needs to clearly separate what is before the CRB (and up for comment) and that which they want competitor input on. Again, as I read the lead post, the Committee wants us to submit comments on their 'suggestions' to the CRB. This is inappropriate. Does the Committee want our feedback or what?
Thank you.
-Jim
I'd like some clarification on what this is all about. In fact, the proposed rules are in the January Fastrack, not February. As I understand the lead post on this thread, the FV Committee is proposing ADDITIONAL rules, but these additional rules have not been submitted to the CRB. Is this correct or not?
If I have missed something, kindly explain what I have missed.
I think that the Committee needs to clearly separate what is before the CRB (and up for comment) and that which they want competitor input on. Again, as I read the lead post, the Committee wants us to submit comments on their 'suggestions' to the CRB. This is inappropriate. Does the Committee want our feedback or what?
Thank you.
-Jim
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
This is my opinion and comments to this thread and the committee news thread about manifolds. Why wasn't Bruce Livermore listed on the attendent
list for the conference call and is he even on the committe? Were these new recomendations sent to the CRB and if so what gives the committee the
right to do this without imput from this board or other competitors, builders or suppliers. The rule about the 1.050" right above the junction is OK,
but measuring the "bend" is not. The "bend" has allways been off limits to measurments and a go no go gage on a "round" object that isn't round will
never work. I have measured all 4 of my manifolds and after talking to 4 manifolds makers (didn't know there were 4 until now) 3 of the manifolds can be made better with the new rules, so how is this going to save the current FV driver any money?
To stay in the same vane as previous comments on the page before this one, these 3 manifolds have won 61 national races- 47 on a Mysterian and 14 on a Vortech for whatever that might mean about car type and manifold quality.
list for the conference call and is he even on the committe? Were these new recomendations sent to the CRB and if so what gives the committee the
right to do this without imput from this board or other competitors, builders or suppliers. The rule about the 1.050" right above the junction is OK,
but measuring the "bend" is not. The "bend" has allways been off limits to measurments and a go no go gage on a "round" object that isn't round will
never work. I have measured all 4 of my manifolds and after talking to 4 manifolds makers (didn't know there were 4 until now) 3 of the manifolds can be made better with the new rules, so how is this going to save the current FV driver any money?
To stay in the same vane as previous comments on the page before this one, these 3 manifolds have won 61 national races- 47 on a Mysterian and 14 on a Vortech for whatever that might mean about car type and manifold quality.
-
hardingfv32-1
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Jim
The Board passed the previous discussed manifold rules. It becomes official when published in the next Fastrack. This is a new request for additional restrictions, mainly measurement of the bends. You can ask the CRB for new restrictions or actually suggest something. Either way they will ask for member input IF they decide a change is required. Member input at this point should focused on whether more manifold rules are necessary or not.
In general, the CRB and Board are not going to be impressed with asking for changes to rules that were just updated.
Brian
The Board passed the previous discussed manifold rules. It becomes official when published in the next Fastrack. This is a new request for additional restrictions, mainly measurement of the bends. You can ask the CRB for new restrictions or actually suggest something. Either way they will ask for member input IF they decide a change is required. Member input at this point should focused on whether more manifold rules are necessary or not.
In general, the CRB and Board are not going to be impressed with asking for changes to rules that were just updated.
Brian
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Sorry Brian, but I just gotta say it; I'm not concerned about impressing the CRB or "Board"hardingfv32-1 wrote:Jim
...In general, the CRB and Board are not going to be impressed with asking for changes to rules that were just updated.
Brian
Bill Roché
Citation XTC41
Team FootShoot partner
Citation XTC41
Team FootShoot partner
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
One of the nice things about the Internet is that it provides instant information to all who are interested, but at the same time it can lead to lots of misinformation -depending on how the information is interpreted.
A group of guys get together once a month with an agenda that is determined by letters (requests) received from the membership or a request from SCCA to either review, interpret, clarify , or suggest modifications to existing rules or come up with ideas to insure the future of the class. They give their best opinion, USUALLY agree as one voice, and put their opinions out to the general public via the Interchange and ask for input either in the form of letters to the Committee or to SCCA. I have to ask : Why Jim (Sabre1) is this inappropriate?
A lot has been said and implied ( using the words YOU and even THEIR INTEREST) when in actuality, all we suggested was that the new rules did not go far enough and that if anyone agreed or disagreed, they should write a letter to SCCA and voice their opinion.
Brian summed it up very nicely when he said that the rules have been adopted, they go into effect April 1, and this is simply a request for membership input. If you can live with the NEW rules as published in Fastrack, or you want to see some further study, write a letter. I also agree with Bill in that I personally do not care if I impress anyone with my letter. It is NOT too late to voice your opinion.
Lastly, (for VORT94) the reason that Bruce Livermore was not listed is that he was on a plane at the time of our conference. SCCA controls the date of our call and the time.
I do have a question though- if the 1.050 rule is fine the way it is ( and the Committee does not agree that it is fine) why would you want to improve your manifold. Does that mean that the NEW rules would allow futher modification? 3 of your manifolds have won 61 National races and you are going to improve them, and you ask how would the rules that the Committee is proposing save the FV driver any money. Think that says it all.
I know that we can not please everyone, and sometimes we can not even please ourselves. What we TRY to do is what is best for this class now and in the future- even if some do not agree.
Dietmar
A group of guys get together once a month with an agenda that is determined by letters (requests) received from the membership or a request from SCCA to either review, interpret, clarify , or suggest modifications to existing rules or come up with ideas to insure the future of the class. They give their best opinion, USUALLY agree as one voice, and put their opinions out to the general public via the Interchange and ask for input either in the form of letters to the Committee or to SCCA. I have to ask : Why Jim (Sabre1) is this inappropriate?
A lot has been said and implied ( using the words YOU and even THEIR INTEREST) when in actuality, all we suggested was that the new rules did not go far enough and that if anyone agreed or disagreed, they should write a letter to SCCA and voice their opinion.
Brian summed it up very nicely when he said that the rules have been adopted, they go into effect April 1, and this is simply a request for membership input. If you can live with the NEW rules as published in Fastrack, or you want to see some further study, write a letter. I also agree with Bill in that I personally do not care if I impress anyone with my letter. It is NOT too late to voice your opinion.
Lastly, (for VORT94) the reason that Bruce Livermore was not listed is that he was on a plane at the time of our conference. SCCA controls the date of our call and the time.
I do have a question though- if the 1.050 rule is fine the way it is ( and the Committee does not agree that it is fine) why would you want to improve your manifold. Does that mean that the NEW rules would allow futher modification? 3 of your manifolds have won 61 National races and you are going to improve them, and you ask how would the rules that the Committee is proposing save the FV driver any money. Think that says it all.
I know that we can not please everyone, and sometimes we can not even please ourselves. What we TRY to do is what is best for this class now and in the future- even if some do not agree.
Dietmar
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
There appears to be a lot of confusion concerning the proposed changes to the manifold rules.
Most of us do not have enough information to make an informed decision about the proposed changes.
The background, as I understand it.
At the 2008 Runoffs a number of questionable manifolds appeared. The SCCA officals were unwilling to take a stand at that time. The Comp Board subsequently asked the Formula Vee Ad-Hoc Committee for a proposal to clarify the rules.
A number years ago the manifold rule was revised to specify where the manifold would be measured. The reason for this was to eliminate the difficulty of measuring the diameter of the horizontal tubeat the bends. IT was not intended to allow additional modifications.
Since then, some manifold preparers have felt that they were not bound by the first rule of Formula Vee which states: "Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DONT." These preparers have now greatly expanded the tubes and/or flanges in areas outside the stated areas of measurement. This is clearly not mentioned anywhere in the rules as an "allowable modification".
Although the currently proposed rule is not perfect, it is certainly liberal enough to allow 99% of the existing manifolds to be legal. ( 1.050" through the bends down to the end castings). I measured my 7 manifolds and the largest is 1.026". There may be a few manifolds may now become illegal do to liberties that have been taken, but that is insignificant compared to the number that these liberties will make non competitive.
The proposed FV Committee recommendations for changes to the rules is doing what is best for the class. Failure of these recommendations to pass will probably mean that we will all have to buy that $2000 manifold.
We need this regulation in place NOW so that we can get on with racing and not have the season muddled up with a rash of unnecessary protests and arguments.
Dan Grace
Most of us do not have enough information to make an informed decision about the proposed changes.
The background, as I understand it.
At the 2008 Runoffs a number of questionable manifolds appeared. The SCCA officals were unwilling to take a stand at that time. The Comp Board subsequently asked the Formula Vee Ad-Hoc Committee for a proposal to clarify the rules.
A number years ago the manifold rule was revised to specify where the manifold would be measured. The reason for this was to eliminate the difficulty of measuring the diameter of the horizontal tubeat the bends. IT was not intended to allow additional modifications.
Since then, some manifold preparers have felt that they were not bound by the first rule of Formula Vee which states: "Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DONT." These preparers have now greatly expanded the tubes and/or flanges in areas outside the stated areas of measurement. This is clearly not mentioned anywhere in the rules as an "allowable modification".
Although the currently proposed rule is not perfect, it is certainly liberal enough to allow 99% of the existing manifolds to be legal. ( 1.050" through the bends down to the end castings). I measured my 7 manifolds and the largest is 1.026". There may be a few manifolds may now become illegal do to liberties that have been taken, but that is insignificant compared to the number that these liberties will make non competitive.
The proposed FV Committee recommendations for changes to the rules is doing what is best for the class. Failure of these recommendations to pass will probably mean that we will all have to buy that $2000 manifold.
We need this regulation in place NOW so that we can get on with racing and not have the season muddled up with a rash of unnecessary protests and arguments.
Dan Grace
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Dietmar and Dan, I will reply to both with this post. Yes I am saying that the 1.050" rule will allow me and most everyone else to make thier current manifolds better per the 4 people I talked to. Dan your bend measurements compare to mine - now lets increase the to 1.050" and see what happens.
-
hardingfv32-1
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
.......New $1000 FV Intake Manifold Price Guaranty.......
No more talk of $2000 manifolds. For $1000 I can supply a manifold that is equal to the best Kochanski in use today. I would estimate this to be equal to the manifolds used by Stout, Veracins, Davis, etc. This is less than the price you would pay ..IF.. you could actually buy one of the front runner's manifolds.
Why are we concerned about costs AFTER all the front runners have made there investments? How can we keep competition equal when there are not enough top grade manifolds to go around?
As always money back if not satisfied.
Brian Harding
Monster Manies
hardingfv32@verizon.net
310 455-2747
No more talk of $2000 manifolds. For $1000 I can supply a manifold that is equal to the best Kochanski in use today. I would estimate this to be equal to the manifolds used by Stout, Veracins, Davis, etc. This is less than the price you would pay ..IF.. you could actually buy one of the front runner's manifolds.
Why are we concerned about costs AFTER all the front runners have made there investments? How can we keep competition equal when there are not enough top grade manifolds to go around?
As always money back if not satisfied.
Brian Harding
Monster Manies
hardingfv32@verizon.net
310 455-2747
Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Nuby,
As Dietmar has said, your argument doesn't hold water.
If with the new limitation of 1.050" in the bends you can improve 3 out of 4 of your manifolds, you can certainly do it WITHOUT the new 1.050" limitation. If anything your argument therefore must be for a smaller restriction than 1.050" in the bends. We actually have gotten that recommendation from a couple of manifold suppliers... The reason we have stayed with the 1.050" is to try to find a balance between eliminating the move to overly large bends vs. keeping "reasonable" manifolds legal.
The question is: if we do get the 1.050" limitation, would it be worth modifying those 1.010" to 1.040" manifolds to get a very small improvement? With NO OD limitation there is clearly an incentive to bring them up to the nearly 1.140" dimension I believe your 4th manifold measures in the bends (how about even larger?).
Adding the limitation does NOT encourage anyone to modify or replace their existing manifolds nearly as much as leaving the rules as the were. This need to replace or modify everyone's manifolds is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
By the way, if the 1.050" limit in the bends is not implemented, which of your 4 manifolds do you plan to use at this years Runoffs at RA?
Bruce
As Dietmar has said, your argument doesn't hold water.
If with the new limitation of 1.050" in the bends you can improve 3 out of 4 of your manifolds, you can certainly do it WITHOUT the new 1.050" limitation. If anything your argument therefore must be for a smaller restriction than 1.050" in the bends. We actually have gotten that recommendation from a couple of manifold suppliers... The reason we have stayed with the 1.050" is to try to find a balance between eliminating the move to overly large bends vs. keeping "reasonable" manifolds legal.
The question is: if we do get the 1.050" limitation, would it be worth modifying those 1.010" to 1.040" manifolds to get a very small improvement? With NO OD limitation there is clearly an incentive to bring them up to the nearly 1.140" dimension I believe your 4th manifold measures in the bends (how about even larger?).
Adding the limitation does NOT encourage anyone to modify or replace their existing manifolds nearly as much as leaving the rules as the were. This need to replace or modify everyone's manifolds is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
By the way, if the 1.050" limit in the bends is not implemented, which of your 4 manifolds do you plan to use at this years Runoffs at RA?
Bruce
Bruce
cendiv37
cendiv37